International order

Last updated

In international relations, international order refers to patterned or structured relationships between actors on the international level. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Definition

David Lake, Lisa Martin and Thomas Risse define "order" as "patterned or structured relationships among units". [2]

Michael Barnett defines an international order as "patterns of relating and acting" derived from and maintained by rules, institutions, law and norms. [4] International orders have both a material and social component. [4] [5] Legitimacy (the generalized perception that actions are desirable, proper or appropriate) is essential to political orders. [4] [5] George Lawson has defined an international order as "regularized practices of exchange among discrete political units that recognize each other to be independent." [6] John Mearsheimer defines an international order "an organized group of international institutions that help govern the interactions among the member states." [7]

In After Victory (2001), John Ikenberry defines a political order as "the governing arrangements among a group of states, including its fundamental rules, principles and institutions." [8]

The United Nations has been characterized as a proxy for how states broadly perceive the international order. [9]

Jeff Colgan has characterized international order as entailing multiple subsystems. [10] These subsystems can experience drastic change without fundamentally changing the international order. [10]

Liberal international order

The liberal international order describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. [11] More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions (like the United Nations, World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund) and is constituted by human equality (freedom, rule of law and human rights), open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. [11] [12] [13] The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States. [11] [14]

The nature of the liberal international order, as well as its very existence, has been debated by scholars. [15] [16] [17] [11] The LIO has been credited with expanding free trade, increasing capital mobility, spreading democracy, promoting human rights, and collectively defending the West from the Soviet Union. [11] The LIO facilitated unprecedented cooperation among the states of North America, Western Europe and Japan. [11] Over time, the LIO facilitated the spread of economic liberalism to the rest of the world, as well as helped consolidate democracy in formerly fascist or communist countries. [11]

Origins of the LIO have commonly been identified as the 1940s, usually starting in 1945. [11] John Mearsheimer has dissented with this view, arguing that the LIO only arose after the end of the Cold War, since Liberal International Order is practically possible only during unipolar moment(s), while at the time of the Cold War the World was bipolar. [18] Core founding members of the LIO include the states of North America, Western Europe and Japan; these states form a security community. [11] The characteristics of the LIO have varied over time. [11] Some scholars refer to a Cold War variation of the LIO and a post-Cold War variation. [19] The Cold War variation was primarily limited to the West and entailed weak global institutions, whereas the post-Cold War variation was worldwide in scope and entailed global institutions with "intrusive" powers. [19]

Aspects of the LIO are challenged internally within liberal states by populism, protectionism and nationalism. [20] [21] [18] [22] Scholars have argued that embedded liberalism (or the logics inherent in the Double Movement) are key to maintaining public support for the planks of the LIO; some scholars have raised questions whether aspects of embedded liberalism have been undermined, thus leading to a backlash against the LIO. [23] [24] [22]

Externally, the LIO is challenged by authoritarian states, illiberal states, and states that are discontented with their roles in world politics. [18] [25] [26] [27] [28] China and Russia have been characterized as prominent challengers to the LIO. [18] [26] [27] [29] [30] Some scholars have argued that the LIO contains self-undermining aspects that could trigger backlash or collapse. [25] [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to engage in power politics.

International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It seeks to explain behaviors and outcomes in international politics. The four most prominent schools of thought are realism, liberalism, constructivism, and rational choice. Whereas realism and liberalism make broad and specific predictions about international relations, constructivism and rational choice are methodological approaches that focus on certain types of social explanation for phenomena.

In international relations, the liberal international order (LIO), also known as rules-based order, describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions and is constituted by human equality, open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.

International political economy (IPE) is the study of how politics shapes the global economy and how the global economy shapes politics. A key focus in IPE is on the power of different actors such as nation states, international organizations and multinational corporations to shape the international economic system and the distributive consequences of international economic activity. It has been described as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Mearsheimer</span> American political scientist (born 1947)

John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.

Economic interdependence is the mutual dependence of the participants in an economic system who trade in order to obtain the products they cannot produce efficiently for themselves. Such trading relationships require that the behavior of a participant affects its trading partners and it would be costly to rupture their relationship. The subject was addressed by A. A. Cournot who wrote: "...but in reality the economic system is a whole in which all of the parts are connected and react on one another. An increase in the income of the producers of commodity A will affect the demands for commodities B, C, etc. and the incomes of their producers, and by its reaction will affect the demand for commodity A." Economic Interdependence is evidently a consequence of the division of labour.

<i>International Organization</i> (journal) Academic journal

International Organization is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that covers the entire field of international affairs. It was established in 1947 and is published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Organization Foundation. The editors-in-chief are Brett Ashley Leeds and Layna Mosley.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

Regime theory is a theory within international relations derived from the liberal tradition that argues that international institutions or regimes affect the behavior of states or other international actors. It assumes that cooperation is possible in the anarchic system of states, as regimes are, by definition, instances of international cooperation.

An international regime is the set of principles, norms, rules and procedures that international actors converge around. Sometimes, when formally organized, it can transform into an intergovernmental organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Realism (international relations)</span> School of thought

Realism, a school of thought in international relations theory, is a theoretical framework that views world politics as an enduring competition among self-interested states vying for power and positioning within an anarchic global system devoid of a centralized authority. It centers on states as rational primary actors navigating a system shaped by power politics, national interest, and a pursuit of security and self-preservation.

Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for three or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

In international relations theory, the concept of anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereignty. In an anarchic state, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ruggie</span> American political scientist (1944–2021)

John Gerard Ruggie was the Berthold Beitz Research Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University and an affiliated professor in international legal studies at Harvard Law School.

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that supports international institutions, open markets, cooperative security and liberal democracy. At its core, it holds that states should participate in international institutions that uphold rules-based norms, promote liberal democracy and facilitate cooperation on transnational problems.

<i>The Tragedy of Great Power Politics</i> 2001 book by John Mearsheimer

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a book by the American scholar John Mearsheimer on the subject of international relations theory published by W.W. Norton & Company in 2001. Mearsheimer explains and argues for his theory of "offensive realism" by stating its key assumptions, evolution from early realist theory, and its predictive capability. An article adapted from the book had previously been published by Foreign Affairs.

Liberal institutionalism is a theory of international relations that holds that international cooperation between states is feasible and sustainable, and that such cooperation can reduce conflict and competition. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, liberal institutionalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations.

The capitalist peace, or capitalist peace theory, or commercial peace, posits that market openness contributes to more peaceful behavior among states, and that developed market-oriented economies are less likely to engage in conflict with one another. Along with the democratic peace theory and institutionalist arguments for peace, the commercial peace forms part of the Kantian tripod for peace. Prominent mechanisms for the commercial peace revolve around how capitalism, trade interdependence, and capital interdependence raise the costs of warfare, incentivize groups to lobby against war, make it harder for leaders to go to war, and reduce the economic benefits of conquest.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. ↑ Lascurettes, Kyle M.; Poznansky, Michael (2021). "International Order in Theory and Practice". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.673. ISBN   978-0-19-084662-6.
  2. 1 2 Lake, David A.; Martin, Lisa L.; Risse, Thomas (2021). "Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization". International Organization. 75 (2): 225–257. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000636 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  3. ↑ Lascurettes, Kyle M. (2020). Orders of Exclusion: Great Powers and the Strategic Sources of Foundational Rules in International Relations. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-006854-7.
  4. 1 2 3 Barnett, Michael (2021). "International Progress, International Order, and the Liberal International Order". The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 14 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1093/cjip/poaa019. ISSN   1750-8916. PMC   7989545 .
  5. 1 2 Martha Finnemore (2009). "Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be". World Politics. 61 (1): 58–85. doi: 10.1353/wp.0.0027 . ISSN   1086-3338.
  6. ↑ Lawson, George (2016). The rise of modern international order. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/hepl/9780198739852.003.0002. ISBN   978-0-19-185085-1. Archived from the original on 2021-08-04. Retrieved 2021-09-02.
  7. ↑ Mearsheimer, John J. (2019). "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order". International Security. 43 (4): 7–50. doi: 10.1162/isec_a_00342 . ISSN   0162-2889.
  8. ↑ Ikenberry, G. John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton University Press. pp. 23, 29–31. ISBN   978-0-691-05091-1.
  9. ↑ Barnett, Michael (1995). "The New United Nations Politics of Peace: From Juridical Sovereignty to Empirical Sovereignty". Global Governance. 1 (1): 79–97. doi:10.1163/19426720-001-01-90000007. ISSN   1075-2846. JSTOR   27800102.
  10. 1 2 Colgan, Jeff D. (2021). Partial Hegemony: Oil Politics and International Order. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-754640-6.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lake, David A.; Martin, Lisa L.; Risse, Thomas (2021). "Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization". International Organization. 75 (2): 225–257. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000636 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  12. ↑ Ikenberry, G. John (2018). "The end of liberal international order?" (PDF). International Affairs. 94 (1): 7–23. doi: 10.1093/ia/iix241 . Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2020 – via OpenScholar @ Princeton.
  13. ↑ Norrlof, Carla; Poast, Paul; Cohen, Benjamin J; Croteau, Sabreena; Khanna, Aashna; McDowell, Daniel; Wang, Hongying; Winecoff, W Kindred (2020). "Global Monetary Order and the Liberal Order Debate". International Studies Perspectives. 21 (2): 109–153. doi:10.1093/isp/ekaa001. ISSN   1528-3577.
  14. ↑ Wright, Thomas (12 September 2018). "The Return to Great-Power Rivalry Was Inevitable". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2 July 2020. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
  15. ↑ Ikenberry, G. John (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7t1s5. ISBN   978-0-691-05090-4. JSTOR   j.ctt7t1s5.
  16. ↑ Mearsheimer, John J. (2018). Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w. ISBN   978-0-300-23419-0. JSTOR   j.ctv5cgb1w. S2CID   240217170.
  17. ↑ Barnett, Michael (2019). "The End of a Liberal International Order That Never Existed • The Global". The Global. Retrieved 2021-02-23.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Mearsheimer, John J. (2019). "Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order". International Security. 43 (4): 7–50. doi: 10.1162/isec_a_00342 . ISSN   0162-2889.
  19. 1 2 Börzel, Tanja A.; Zürn, Michael (2021). "Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism". International Organization. 75 (2): 282–305. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000570 . hdl: 10419/249777 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  20. ↑ Flaherty, Thomas M.; Rogowski, Ronald (2021). "Rising Inequality As a Threat to the Liberal International Order". International Organization. 75 (2): 495–523. doi: 10.1017/S0020818321000163 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  21. ↑ Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry; Weymouth, Stephen (2021). "Populism in Place: The Economic Geography of the Globalization Backlash". International Organization. 75 (2): 464–494. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000314 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  22. 1 2 Goldstein, Judith; Gulotty, Robert (2021). "America and the Trade Regime: What Went Wrong?". International Organization. 75 (2): 524–557. doi: 10.1017/S002081832000065X . ISSN   0020-8183.
  23. ↑ Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order". International Organization. 36 (2): 379–415. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300018993 . ISSN   0020-8183. JSTOR   2706527.
  24. ↑ Mansfield, Edward D.; Rudra, Nita (2021). "Embedded Liberalism in the Digital Era". International Organization. 75 (2): 558–585. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000569 . ISSN   0020-8183. SSRN   3719975.
  25. 1 2 Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2021). "The Janus Face of the Liberal International Information Order: When Global Institutions Are Self-Undermining". International Organization. 75 (2): 333–358. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000302 . ISSN   0020-8183.
  26. 1 2 Weiss, Jessica Chen; Wallace, Jeremy L. (2021). "Domestic Politics, China's Rise, and the Future of the Liberal International Order". International Organization. 75 (2): 635–664. doi: 10.1017/S002081832000048X . ISSN   0020-8183.
  27. 1 2 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca; Zarakol, Ayşe (2021). "Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents". International Organization. 75 (2): 611–634. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000454 . ISSN   0020-8183. S2CID   234364938.
  28. ↑ Cooley, Alexander; Nexon, Daniel (2021-04-29). "The Illiberal Tide". Foreign Affairs. ISSN   0015-7120 . Retrieved 2021-12-08.
  29. ↑ Kristinsson, Thorsteinn (2021). "Networks of order in East Asia: Beyond hegemonic theories of the Liberal International Order". International Politics. 60: 1–24. doi:10.1057/s41311-021-00361-w. ISSN   1740-3898. S2CID   240415250.
  30. 1 2 Beckley, Michael (2022-02-15). "Enemies of My Enemy". Foreign Affairs. ISSN   0015-7120 . Retrieved 2022-02-19. The liberal order, like all international orders, is a form of organized hypocrisy that contains the seeds of its own demise. To forge a cohesive community, order builders have to exclude hostile nations, outlaw uncooperative behaviors, and squelch domestic opposition to international rule-making. These inherently repressive acts eventually trigger a backlash.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.